fix: audit batch — answer YAMLs, bench math, compare FAQ, JSON-LD

answers/alchemy-vs-quicknode-vs-infura-latency.yml

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 slug: alchemy-vs-quicknode-vs-infura-latency
 question: "Alchemy vs QuickNode vs Infura, which has the lowest RPC latency in 2026?"
 short_answer: |
-  {{best_name}} currently leads the keyed free-tier RPC leaderboard at {{best_p50}} p50 latency (24h avg), measured live from three regions by OpenChainBench against the keyed free tiers of Alchemy, QuickNode, Infura, Chainstack, Ankr and Helius on the same eth_getBlockByNumber probe.
+  OpenChainBench probes Alchemy, QuickNode and Infura alongside Chainstack, Ankr and Helius from three regions on identical eth_getBlockByNumber calls. Cross-provider leadership swings by chain and region: QuickNode usually wins US-East on the majors, Chainstack often leads Singapore on BNB and Polygon, and Helius is the Solana leg. Live 24h ranking at openchainbench.com/benchmarks/rpc-keyed-latency.
 
 benchmark: rpc-keyed-latency
 
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ limitations:
 
 faq:
   - q: "Which free-tier RPC provider is fastest right now, Alchemy, QuickNode or Infura?"
-    a: "{{best_name}} leads at {{best_p50}} p50 (24h avg) on the free-tier keyed leaderboard measured across three regions. The full ranking including QuickNode, Alchemy, Helius, Chainstack, Ankr and Infura re-sorts every 60 seconds against fresh Prometheus samples."
+    a: "Leadership on the free-tier keyed leaderboard swings by chain and region rather than a single cross-chain winner. Between Alchemy, QuickNode and Infura specifically, QuickNode usually posts the tightest US-East p50 on the majors and Alchemy leads EU-West. The full 6-provider ranking (QuickNode, Alchemy, Helius, Chainstack, Ankr, Infura) re-sorts every 60 seconds against fresh Prometheus samples at openchainbench.com/benchmarks/rpc-keyed-latency."
   - q: "Why does Infura sit lower on this leaderboard than Alchemy or QuickNode?"
     a: "Infura's free-tier throughput has degraded in 2026 due to daily credit brownouts that turn into 429 responses. Because latency is only recorded on successful calls, Infura's p50 looks acceptable in isolation but the Success column reveals sub-95% ok-rate on the free tier. QuickNode and Alchemy pair fast latency with 99.9%+ success, which is why they sit above Infura in a fair ranking."
   - q: "Are these numbers different from what Alchemy or QuickNode publish on their own marketing pages?"
@@ -39,5 +39,5 @@ related:
   - which-solana-rpc-lands-the-most-transactions
 
 seo_title: "Alchemy vs QuickNode vs Infura RPC latency, live 2026"
-seo_description: "{{best_name}} leads at {{best_p50}} p50 (24h avg) on the free-tier keyed RPC leaderboard. Alchemy, QuickNode, Infura, Chainstack, Ankr and Helius ranked live from three regions by OpenChainBench."
+seo_description: "OpenChainBench ranks Alchemy, QuickNode and Infura alongside Chainstack, Ankr and Helius on identical eth_getBlockByNumber probes from three regions. Live per chain and per region leaders on the bench page."
 status: live

answers/cheapest-bridge-usdc-to-base.yml

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 slug: cheapest-bridge-usdc-to-base
 question: "Which bridge is cheapest to move USDC to Base?"
 short_answer: |
-  {{best_name}} currently offers the lowest effective fee for a USDC bridge to Base at {{best_p50}} bps all in (24h avg), measured live by OpenChainBench across Across, Stargate, LI.FI, Squid, Socket, Relay and Near Intents on a $300 USDC probe.
+  OpenChainBench measures the all in cost of a $300 USDC bridge (fee plus slippage plus destination gas) across six routers: Mobula, Relay, LI.FI, deBridge, Across and Near Intents. Since the bench aggregates across the Solana, Base and Arbitrum corridors, the USDC-to-Base leader on a specific corridor is on the per corridor breakdown at openchainbench.com/benchmarks/bridge-fee.
 
 benchmark: bridge-fee
 
@@ -15,19 +15,19 @@ limitations:
   - "Quote fee only. This measures router-quoted effective fee, not settlement. Any router that quotes tighter than it settles would show a fast p50 with degraded real-world execution; the sibling bridge-quote-latency bench flags routers where quote-to-settle drift is measurable."
   - "One size, one route. The $300 USDC to Base pair is the highest-search-volume small-ticket bridge query. At $50k notional the leaderboard re-orders because the spread and LP fee components dominate. Producers moving treasury size should read the per-size breakdown on the bench page."
   - "Destination gas at quote time. Destination gas is included in the effective fee at the quoted receiver payout, not at a delayed execution instant. A destination gas spike between quote and settle would degrade the actual fee below what this leaderboard reports."
-  - "No canonical CCTP fast path. The USDC canonical bridge via Circle CCTP has different guarantees and speeds than the market-maker routers ranked here. The leaderboard measures the market-maker path (Across, LI.FI, Stargate, Squid, Socket, Relay, Near Intents) because it is the head-to-head every comparison article ranks."
+  - "No canonical CCTP fast path. The USDC canonical bridge via Circle CCTP has different guarantees and speeds than the market-maker routers ranked here. The leaderboard measures the market-maker path (Mobula, Relay, LI.FI, deBridge, Across, Near Intents) because it is the head-to-head every comparison article ranks."
 
 faq:
   - q: "Which bridge is cheapest for a $300 USDC transfer to Base?"
-    a: "{{best_name}} leads the leaderboard at {{best_p50}} bps effective fee (24h avg) measured live on the same USDC to Base $300 probe. The full ranking including Across, Stargate, LI.FI, Squid, Socket, Relay and Near Intents re-sorts every 5 minutes against fresh Prometheus samples."
+    a: "The bench-fee leaderboard on the Base corridor is at openchainbench.com/benchmarks/bridge-fee. Six routers compete on the same $300 USDC probe (Mobula, Relay, LI.FI, deBridge, Across and Near Intents) and the ranking re-sorts every 5 minutes against fresh Prometheus samples."
   - q: "Why $300, and does the winner change at $10k or $100k?"
-    a: "$300 is the small-ticket regime that dominates retail search. At $10k the leaderboard shifts because LP-based routers (Stargate) start to lose ground to intent-based routers (Across, Near Intents) whose quotes are less size-dependent. At $100k the spread widens further and the choice becomes size-specific; the per-size tab on the bench page shows the leader at each notional."
+    a: "$300 is the small-ticket regime that dominates retail search. At $10k the leaderboard shifts because aggregator markups compress against intent-based routers (Across, Near Intents, Mobula) whose quotes are less size-dependent. At $100k the spread widens further and the choice becomes size-specific; the per-size tab on the bench page shows the leader at each notional."
   - q: "Is Circle CCTP not on this ranking?"
     a: "CCTP is Circle's canonical burn-and-mint path for USDC. It has different guarantees, speeds and a fixed protocol path, so it is not directly comparable to market-maker routers that price a swap through a pool. The bench measures the market-maker rankings because that is the choice retail actually makes; canonical CCTP is a separate decision users make once they know their maximum acceptable latency."
   - q: "How is Across usually so cheap on this route?"
     a: "Across runs an intent-based settlement model where relayers compete to fill from destination inventory. That model compresses the spread component to near zero on high-liquidity pairs like USDC Ethereum to Base. On less-liquid destinations Across loses its edge; that per-destination effect is why the leaderboard re-ranks by pair rather than emitting a single global cheapest bridge."
-  - q: "Is Stargate outdated for Base?"
-    a: "Stargate remains competitive on high-throughput pairs where its LP depth matters more than intent competition. On USDC to Base the pair-specific LP depth in 2026 has been narrower than intent-based competitors, which is why the leaderboard usually shows an intent router on top. Stargate wins on pairs where LP depth is the constraint."
+  - q: "Which USDC routers are on this leaderboard?"
+    a: "Six routers: Mobula, Relay, LI.FI, deBridge, Across and Near Intents. LP-based venues (Stargate, Squid, Socket) are not measured on this bench because their $300 USDC quote APIs did not meet the harness's coverage or reliability threshold; those venues remain competitive on higher notionals where LP depth dominates the spread."
   - q: "How often is the leaderboard refreshed?"
     a: "Every 5 minutes. The harness probes every router's quote API at that cadence, publishes bridge_effective_fee_bps to Prometheus, and the page reads a 24h rolling average. Because the recording rules re-aggregate every 30 seconds the on-screen ranking re-orders within a minute of any router changing quote behavior."
 
@@ -37,5 +37,5 @@ related:
   - which-blockchain-has-cheapest-transaction-fees
 
 seo_title: "Cheapest bridge for USDC to Base 2026 live"
-seo_description: "{{best_name}} leads at {{best_p50}} bps effective fee on a $300 USDC to Base probe. Across, Stargate, LI.FI, Squid, Socket, Relay and Near Intents ranked live by OpenChainBench."
+seo_description: "OpenChainBench ranks six USDC routers (Mobula, Relay, LI.FI, deBridge, Across, Near Intents) on all in cost at $300 notional across Solana, Base and Arbitrum. Live per corridor breakdown on the bench page."
 status: live

answers/drpc-vs-publicnode-vs-1rpc.yml

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 slug: drpc-vs-publicnode-vs-1rpc
 question: "dRPC vs PublicNode vs 1RPC, which no-key public RPC is fastest?"
 short_answer: |
-  {{best_name}} currently leads the no-key public RPC leaderboard at {{best_p50}} p50 (24h), measured live from three regions across 10 EVM chains by OpenChainBench. dRPC, PublicNode and 1RPC each cover a different subset of chains and OpenChainBench ranks them under identical measurement conditions.
+  OpenChainBench ranks dRPC, PublicNode and 1RPC alongside 12 other no-key public RPCs on identical eth_getBlockByNumber probes from three regions across 10 EVM chains. Aggregate leaders on the full 15-provider board are often chain-official gateways (Binance, Base, Avalanche) rather than the multi-chain trio, and 1RPC was delisted from the leaderboard 2026-07-09 for a sustained sub-13 percent success rate. Live per chain and per region ranking at openchainbench.com/benchmarks/rpc-capabilities.
 
 benchmark: rpc-capabilities
 
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ limitations:
 
 faq:
   - q: "Which no-key public RPC is fastest right now, dRPC, PublicNode or 1RPC?"
-    a: "{{best_name}} leads the leaderboard at {{best_p50}} p50 (24h) on the cross-chain average measured live from three regions. Per-chain leaders are different: PublicNode wins some chains, dRPC wins others, and 1RPC's ranking is bounded by its Success column more than by its raw p50."
+    a: "On the aggregate 15-provider board a chain-official gateway (Binance, Base, Avalanche) usually posts the fastest p50, not the multi-chain trio. Between the three named providers dRPC and PublicNode trade places by chain and region; 1RPC was delisted on 2026-07-09 for sub-13 percent success rate and is pinned below the ranked table. Live per chain and per region breakdown is at openchainbench.com/benchmarks/rpc-capabilities."
   - q: "Why does 1RPC show fast latency but a low Success rate?"
     a: "The privacy-preserving gateway introduces additional processing between the client and the underlying node, and 1RPC has run into rate-limit and staleness issues at minimal probe load in 2025 to 2026. Because latency is recorded only on successful calls, the fast p50 hides how often a request would have failed in production. Read the Success column before ranking 1RPC alongside dRPC and PublicNode."
   - q: "Does dRPC's consensus-checking add latency compared to PublicNode?"
@@ -37,5 +37,5 @@ related:
   - alchemy-vs-quicknode-vs-infura-latency
 
 seo_title: "dRPC vs PublicNode vs 1RPC no-key RPC latency 2026"
-seo_description: "{{best_name}} leads at {{best_p50}} p50 (24h) on the OpenChainBench no-key public RPC leaderboard. dRPC, PublicNode and 1RPC ranked live across 10 EVM chains from three regions."
+seo_description: "OpenChainBench ranks dRPC, PublicNode and 1RPC alongside 12 other no-key public RPCs on identical probes from three regions across 10 EVM chains. Live ranking on the bench page."
 status: live

answers/helius-vs-triton-vs-quicknode-solana.yml

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 slug: helius-vs-triton-vs-quicknode-solana
 question: "Helius vs Triton vs QuickNode, which lands the most Solana transactions?"
 short_answer: |
-  {{best_name}} currently lands the highest share of Solana transactions on the OpenChainBench active-probe harness at {{best_p50}} (24h), measured live from three regions by broadcasting identical transfers through each provider's mainnet RPC and confirming inclusion onchain.
+  OpenChainBench broadcasts identical Solana transfers through Helius, Triton and QuickNode every measurement cycle from three regions and confirms inclusion onchain, so the landed-rate head-to-head is measured live rather than self-reported. Jito bundle submission is also on the leaderboard as a separate priority-lane comparator. Full 24h landed-rate ranking for the three named providers is at openchainbench.com/benchmarks/solana-tx-landing.
 
 benchmark: solana-tx-landing
 
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ limitations:
 
 faq:
   - q: "Which Solana RPC lands the most transactions right now, Helius, Triton or QuickNode?"
-    a: "{{best_name}} leads the OpenChainBench active-probe leaderboard at {{best_p50}} (24h) on real broadcasts confirmed onchain. The full ranking including Helius, Triton, QuickNode, Alchemy and public RPCs re-sorts every measurement cycle against fresh Prometheus samples."
+    a: "The live 24h ranking for the three named providers is on openchainbench.com/benchmarks/solana-tx-landing. Each cycle the harness broadcasts an identical SOL transfer through Helius, Triton and QuickNode from three regions and polls the signature onchain until it is confirmed or crosses the landing deadline, so the ranking is reproducible from public data rather than derived from provider self-reports. Jito bundle submission is included on the same leaderboard as a separate priority-lane comparator, which is why an aggregate leader may name Jito rather than one of the three RPC providers in the question."
   - q: "Why measure landing rate instead of just latency?"
     a: "On Solana under congestion, the failure mode that matters to users is dropped transactions, not slow responses. A provider can return a fast success ack from sendTransaction and never actually get the tx into a block. OpenChainBench confirms inclusion onchain by polling for the signature, so the landed rate reflects what a user actually experiences, not what the provider self-reports."
   - q: "Is Helius Sender factored into this ranking?"
@@ -37,5 +37,5 @@ related:
   - which-crypto-price-api-is-the-fastest
 
 seo_title: "Helius vs Triton vs QuickNode Solana landing rate 2026"
-seo_description: "{{best_name}} leads at {{best_p50}} (24h) on the OpenChainBench active-probe Solana landing leaderboard. Helius, Triton, QuickNode ranked live by real onchain confirmation."
+seo_description: "Helius, Triton and QuickNode Solana landed-rate head-to-head measured live onchain from three regions. Live 24h ranking at openchainbench.com/benchmarks/solana-tx-landing."
 status: live

answers/polymarket-vs-kalshi-resolution-speed.yml

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 slug: polymarket-vs-kalshi-resolution-speed
 question: "Polymarket vs Kalshi, which resolves prediction markets faster?"
 short_answer: |
-  {{best_name}} currently resolves faster on the OpenChainBench harness at {{best_p50}} median resolution delay (24h), measured directly onchain for Polymarket and via official settlement events for Kalshi across sports, politics and crypto market categories.
+  OpenChainBench measures Polymarket resolution delay directly onchain on Polygon: median across sports, politics and crypto categories is in the tens of minutes today, with crypto markets fastest and politics slowest by a wide margin. Kalshi settlement is offchain through a CFTC-registered exchange and is not yet in the harness; the venue-versus-venue head-to-head on this page will populate as soon as Kalshi settlement events are ingested. Live numbers per category at openchainbench.com/benchmarks/polymarket-resolution-delay.
 
 benchmark: polymarket-resolution-delay
 
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ limitations:
 
 faq:
   - q: "Polymarket vs Kalshi, which resolves faster right now?"
-    a: "{{best_name}} leads at {{best_p50}} median resolution delay (24h). The per-category breakdown at the top of the bench page shows the venue that wins on sports, politics and crypto separately, which is the honest way to answer a question that depends heavily on category."
+    a: "Only Polymarket is measured live in this benchmark today. Polymarket resolution delay is read directly from UMA OptimisticOracleV2 events on Polygon and broken out by market category (sports, politics, crypto). Kalshi settles offchain through its own CFTC-registered exchange and its settlement events are not yet ingested by the harness; the venue-versus-venue head-to-head cell on this page will populate as soon as they are. In the meantime, the per-category delays for Polymarket are on the bench page."
   - q: "Why is Polymarket resolution slower on politics than sports?"
     a: "Polymarket runs on UMA's optimistic oracle. The liveness window (time between outcome proposal and dispute deadline) is proportional to stakes, and politics markets have both larger stakes and higher dispute probability than clean sports outcomes. The result is a category-specific delay that sports mostly avoid."
   - q: "Is Kalshi always faster than Polymarket?"
@@ -37,5 +37,5 @@ related:
   - which-hyperliquid-frontend-has-the-most-builder-revenue
 
 seo_title: "Polymarket vs Kalshi resolution speed 2026 live"
-seo_description: "{{best_name}} leads at {{best_p50}} median resolution delay (24h) on the OpenChainBench prediction market resolution benchmark. Polymarket and Kalshi ranked live across sports, politics, crypto."
+seo_description: "OpenChainBench measures Polymarket resolution delay live onchain across sports, politics and crypto markets. Kalshi ingestion pending. Full per-category numbers at openchainbench.com."
 status: live